Nepalis seem to have a peculiar trait: everyone aspires to lead, and once they reach the top, they refuse to let go. This is evident in the staggering 122 political parties registered with the Election Commission, with countless more informal outfits waiting in the wings. Nearly every professional group—from students to university professors—has its own union, all tied to a political party. Even the Nepali diaspora abroad mirrors these partisan divisions. Nepal is a country where governments change frequently and rarely endure, yet the same handful of senior leaders continue rotating in a never-ending game of musical chairs.
The roots of this stagnation run deep. Leaders who once championed democracy encouraged student unions, civil servant associations, and other political wings to build broad constituencies against the Rana oligarchy and, later, the partyless Panchayat system. After the restoration of democracy in 1990, these organizations proliferated unchecked. Only a handful of leaders today recognize that these structures have long outlived their purpose. Keeping them alive is like leaving scaffolding intact long after the building is finished—an unnecessary relic of a past struggle. Yet most leaders do not even dare to suggest dismantling them.
Within this landscape of entrenched structures, Sher Bahadur Deuba (NC), KP Sharma Oli (CPN-UML), Pushpa Kamal Dahal (CPN Maoist Center), Madhav Kumar Nepal (CPN Socialist), and a few others have clung to power. They guided the nation through monarchy, conflict, constitution-making, and federal republicanism, leaving an indelible mark on history. But history must not become a hostage of the present. Their prolonged tenure has stifled renewal, eroded public trust, and trapped Nepal in a cycle of political inertia. The era of these leaders has passed; the nation deserves fresh leadership, vision, and energy.
Democracy Demands Renewal
Democracy thrives on change, accountability, and generational renewal. Yet in Nepal, leadership has long been monopolized by a few individuals for over three decades. Deuba has been prime minister five times, Oli thrice, Dahal thrice, and Nepal once. Jhala Nath Khanal and Babu Ram Bhattarai also served once each. Even smaller parties follow this pattern: Narayan Man Bijukchhe (Nepal Workers and Peasants Party) and Chitra Bahadur KC National People’s Front have led their parties for 35 years. Fringe leaders in the Terai split parties rather than risk losing top positions. Instead of renewal, the political landscape recycles the same faces, rhetoric, and failures—suffocating fresh ideas and discouraging younger leaders. A democracy in which leadership never changes risks degenerating into an oligarchy. Leaders who once fought authoritarianism now obstruct the very democratic renewal they once championed.
Legacy Already Written
An old dog cannot learn new tricks. If a leader cannot effectively steer their party, government, or fulfill the duties entrusted to them, how can anyone expect miracles in the twilight of their career? Most of these leaders were already in their forties before 1990, long before today’s Gen Z had been born. Even younger generations struggle to keep pace with a rapidly changing, tech-driven world. How, then, can septuagenarian leaders remain fit for the challenges of a new era? The youth are frustrated with old faces offering no fresh ideas. The utility of these leaders has been exhausted—they have recovered the investment, the interest, and the interest on the interest.
The September 8–9, 2025 movement, which sparked unprecedented upheaval, was a stark manifestation of this impatience. The 27-hour nationwide protest disrupted the political landscape and cast the federal republican polity into uncertainty. The message was clear: the era of septuagenarian dominance in Nepali politics must end. Deuba, Oli, Dahal, and Nepal have had their opportunity. They restored democracy, signed peace agreements, drafted constitutions, and overseen crucial transitions. Their achievements are recorded in history—but so are their failures: chronic instability, rampant corruption, policy paralysis, and erosion of public trust. Leaders who overstay their relevance risk tarnishing their legacy. Instead of being remembered as statesmen, they may be seen as power-hungry figures clinging to authority.
Decades of Failure, a Nation in Flames
The political credibility of Nepal’s senior-most leaders has collapsed. Had they retained even a shred of public trust, the September 8–9 protests would not have spiraled into the catastrophic events that followed—claiming 77 lives at the time of writing and leaving devastation in Singha Durbar, Birendra International Convention Center, the offices of the prime minister and president, Supreme Court, numerous government buildings, and the residences of senior party leaders. Businesses, too, suffered. Looting, arson, and vandalism have pushed the country back at least a decade. This upheaval mirrors decades of incompetence and negligence.
Public opinion surveys confirm the disconnect: declining voter turnout, rising protest votes for new forces, and youth disengagement or outmigration. The old guard’s leadership is synonymous with corruption, patronage, and opportunism. Oli is remembered for constitutional coups; Dahal for trading revolution for power; Deuba for corruption scandals; Nepal for splitting parties for personal ambition. Leaders who have lost public confidence cannot govern effectively.
A Generation Held Hostage
The overstay of senior leaders has completely eroded public trust—it strangled the rise of new leadership. Ambitious, capable figures remain sidelined because top chairs are permanently occupied by men in their seventies. Retirement would open the floor to competition, allowing leaders attuned to federalism, inclusivity, technology, and global challenges to take the helm. Instead, parties resemble retirement clubs rather than engines of transformation. Nepal’s youth form the majority, yet they are ruled by leaders whose worldview was forged in the 1970s and 1980s.
This generational mismatch is unsustainable.
In democracies worldwide, leaders retire voluntarily. Nelson Mandela stepped down after one term; in Europe, most party leaders retire by their mid-sixties. In the United States, debates over septuagenarian leaders are intensifying. By contrast, Nepal’s leaders cling indefinitely, often only leaving when ill health intervenes. This is destabilizing. The world moves fast; leaders who cannot navigate digital economies, climate change, and global diplomacy risk leaving the country isolated and lagging behind.
Culprits of Political Instability
Nepal’s senior leaders have held the country hostage to chronic instability, producing 29 governments in 35 years. Constitutions and electoral systems—especially proportional representation—have made it nearly impossible for any party to secure a clear parliamentary majority. Hung parliaments and coalition governments institutionalize corruption. Every year wasted in intra-party feuds and leadership battles is a year lost for the country. Instead of focusing on growth, employment, or public service, the old guard schemed for power. Endless party splits, mergers, and betrayals have hollowed out governance. The people bear the cost: stagnant economy, failing education, crumbling healthcare, and worsening corruption. Fresh leadership is not a luxury—it is a necessity for survival.
Calling for retirement does not erase their service. It recognizes their contribution while affirming that leadership belongs to the future. They can still serve as mentors or advisors, offering wisdom without obstructing renewal. A graceful retirement could even redeem their image, demonstrating statesmanship and setting a precedent for democratic leadership change.
Step Aside for Nepal’s Sake
Nepal faces an Everest of unprecedented challenges: youth outmigration, unemployment, corruption, climate vulnerability, and geopolitical pressure. Addressing these requires fresh energy, new ideas, and leaders who connect with the aspirations of younger generations. Deuba, Oli, Dahal, Nepal, and their peers have done their part. Their era is over. The most patriotic and dignified act they can perform now is to step aside. Democracy is not about individuals; it is about institutions, renewal, and the people’s right to be governed by leaders they trust. Nepal’s future cannot be held hostage to the insecurities of its aging political elite. The old leaders have been tested and failed. It is time for the old guard to retire—for the sake of their legacy, and more importantly, for the sake of Nepal.